Grounding/Bonding for a Pump House

Status
Not open for further replies.

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I'm working at a day camp that utilizes an Artisian well to fill their pools each year. The pump is located at the far end of the facility and is housed in a small shed. Recently there was a problem with the pump and it leaked, filling up the well pit that it was located in. The facility's personnel were hesitant to go inside and shut the breakers (I don't blame them). Service to the shed is from an overhead utility pole about 5' away. The service is a 100A, 3-phase with a high leg. The meter enclosure is located on the pole and the load enters the shed through a 1 1/2" gal conduit (about a 10' run). Inside the shed is a main lug panel (right at ground level) with a 3P-40 for the pump, a 3P-15 for surge & lightening protection and a s/p 20 for a GFI receptacle and light.

I was contracted to install a 3-P disconnect switch which, I did recently, and located it on the pole just below the meter enclosure. Prior to doing this I had the EI come up and inspect the installation as it was. The grounding was done inside the meter enclosure and there was a ground rod located beside the utility pole. He was curious as to why it was done this way but said that I could go ahead and install the disconnect switch. (BTW, this is strictly a non-fused knife switch).

My questions are :
  • Should the grounding have been originally done at the first over-current device inside the shed ?
  • If so, was this a code violation before I installed the disconnect switch ?
  • Am I in violation now that I've installed the disconnect switch and didn't change the grounding
I don't think I'll fail this inspection based on the EI's comments but I'd just like to hear some opinions as to what the correct way should be. Did I already answer my own questions ?:?

Thanks
 
Location
NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
Occupation
EC - retired
The GES can be bonded to the neutral at any point from the pole top, in your case, on in to the Service Equipment.


There was a recent thread on this, I'll see if I can find it.

I don't know what to call a non fused disconnect below the meter. Nothing?
 
Last edited:

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
250.24(A)(1) permits the GEC to be connected to the grounded conductor at any point on the line side of the service disconnect.
Are there any grounding electrodes at the building itself?
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
250.24(A)(1) permits the GEC to be connected to the grounded conductor at any point on the line side of the service disconnect.
Are there any grounding electrodes at the building itself?
I didn't notice any but the piping to the well is 3" gal.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
The GES can be bonded to the neutral at any point from the pole top, in your case, on in to the Service Equipment.


There was a recent thread on this, I'll see if I can find it.

I don't know what to call a non fused disconnect below the meter. Nothing?
If I made it a fused disconnect then it would be the first over-current device and then technically, I would have had to change all the bonding. IMHO, as long as the EI said it was OK to install a simple knife switch I'm OK with that. BTW, fused disconnects are a lot more expensive than non-fused. Granted, I could have passed that on to the property owner but if it isn't required - why do it ?
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
I see some interesting points for discussion with the install but bottom line, if your EI is happy most those points are mute.
Although I've seen it done, I don't see where 230.82 allows the NF disconnect ahead of the service disconnect and 230.91 would require the OCP integral to or in close proximity to the disconnect.
Locally, POCO would have required a ground rod at the meter base but that's a POCO rule here.

As a side note you might want to check 250.112(M)
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I see some interesting points for discussion with the install but bottom line, if your EI is happy most those points are mute.
Although I've seen it done, I don't see where 230.82 allows the NF disconnect ahead of the service disconnect and 230.91 would require the OCP integral to or in close proximity to the disconnect.
Locally, POCO would have required a ground rod at the meter base but that's a POCO rule here.

As a side note you might want to check 250.112(M)
There is a ground rod at the meter base. Apparently POCO was OK with this installation prior to me installing a disconnect. There was never a "service disconnect" per say as the 6 switch rule applies and there are only 3 throws of the hand in the ML panel. So, my thinking was if the POCO was OK with the installation prior to installing a basic knife switch, what difference would installing one make other than making a safer installation for facility personnel.

You're probably right in that if the EI was OK with it then it's just a moot point. I'm just thinking out loud wondering if the installation is or was ever compliant.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
Sounds like it was compliant. The road at the meter serves as the grounding electrode and the "6 disconnect" rule is o.k. as service.
I would have no problem with the new install mainly because it provides the owner with a safe disconnecting means in the event of a re-occurrence, but, as noted, I don't think it is NEC compliant.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Sounds like it was compliant. The road at the meter serves as the grounding electrode and the "6 disconnect" rule is o.k. as service.
I would have no problem with the new install mainly because it provides the owner with a safe disconnecting means in the event of a re-occurrence, but, as noted, I don't think it is NEC compliant.
Thanks for your comments. We'll see what happens on Thursday when it get's inspected. Hopefully the EI won't have change of heart.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
When I did this I ran a grounding electrode conductor to the well casing. Just drilled and tapped the casing with a 1/4x20 thread.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
As a side note, the well casing, if metal, needs to be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor supplying the submersible well pump.
Isn't it bonded through the electrical circuit connection to the motor ? The largest breaker is a 3P-40 to the pump.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Isn't it bonded through the electrical circuit connection to the motor ? The largest breaker is a 3P-40 to the pump.
No, that pump motor is just suspended inside the casing and there is no solid connection between it and the casing until you make one.
You may want to make sure it is metal casing for more then just a few feet below grade. You need 10 feet of metal pipe to have a qualifying grounding electrode.

As far as whether it was ever compliant, depending on age that panel likely needed a main a few code cycles ago but now the "lighting and appliance panelboard" definition is gone and that isn't an issue anymore. (the 20 amp 120 volt circuit made this a lighting/appliance panelboard back then).

Otherwise the panel still needs to be suitable for use as service equipment - and I'd bet it's instructions say it is only if a main breaker is installed.

I also agree that unfused disconnect is not allowed per 230.82. If it were ahead of the meter it could be installed per 230.82(3) but you would still need a service disconnecting means in addition to this disconnect.
 

hornetd

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician, Retired
I just don't know

I just don't know

I didn't notice any but the piping to the well is 3" gal.

I would have wanted to install an enclosed main breaker on the outside of the pump house and then treat it as the Service Disconnecting Means. I would have gone with the enclosed breaker because they often cost a lot less than the same size of fused disconnect. That way I wouldn't have to do anything on the utility's pole. In that way I would have a fairly clean demarcation point between the National Electrical Safety Code work and the National Electrical Code work.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I would have wanted to install an enclosed main breaker on the outside of the pump house and then treat it as the Service Disconnecting Means. I would have gone with the enclosed breaker because they often cost a lot less than the same size of fused disconnect. That way I wouldn't have to do anything on the utility's pole. In that way I would have a fairly clean demarcation point between the National Electrical Safety Code work and the National Electrical Code work.
2011 NEC did make that demarcation point more clear by introducing the "service point".

Generally speaking if the POCO installs/maintains it, it is on their side of service point. A service disconnecting means needs to be on the customer side or at least the service point needs to be within the service disconnecting means IMO.
 

goldstar

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I would have wanted to install an enclosed main breaker on the outside of the pump house and then treat it as the Service Disconnecting Means. I would have gone with the enclosed breaker because they often cost a lot less than the same size of fused disconnect. That way I wouldn't have to do anything on the utility's pole. In that way I would have a fairly clean demarcation point between the National Electrical Safety Code work and the National Electrical Code work.
If this were a new installation I would have done that. However, digging up that conduit would have been a real PITA.

Just to let everyone know, this installation was inspected last thursday and passed inspection. That doesn't mean it was a Code compliant installation. FWIW, I think putting a main breaker w/p disconnect on the utility pole instead of a knife switch was the best suggested solution to this problem. Relocating the EGC would not have been difficult at all but what's done is done. It's still safer than what previously existed. Thanks for all your opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top